Hollywood, in its relentless quest to avoid originality for sequels and franchises and remakes is releasing a new version of ARTHUR starring Russell Brand. Why?? Judging by this trailer, they have sucked out any of the charm and sophistication of the original and replaced it with crass, juvenile, over-the-top slapstick, and incredibly lame jokes. Not to mention, Russell Brand.

Here's the trailer, and remember, all the very best jokes are in the preview. Hollywood will tell you they're just updating a classic. I say they're spitting on the flag.

57 comments:

I actually found this blog a few months ago Googling around trying to find out "Whatever happened to the guy who wrote 'Arthur'?", as I think that may have been the best written (and cast) romantic comedy of all time.

Amen, Brother Levine. The original is a beautifully witty and charming movie with a stellar performance from everyone involved. It's still a joy to watch and it doesn't need a remake. It certainly doesn't need Russell Fucking Brand.He's been peddling that ex-junkie, faux-Dickensian shtick here in the UK for aeons, and everyone's bored to tears of him. Why did you let him through border control, America? What was on his passport? Comic Actor? Isn't that fraudulent? And who thought he was comparable to the sublime Dudley Moore? Earl Pomerantz posted a very insightful theory as to why this movie will suck like a black hole in space - for sociological reasons - and that's before you even factor in the unwashed comedic anti-matter that is Russell Brand.

In other news, a production company plans to film the story of two surgeons taking on the Army bureaucracy during the Korean War, updated for today by featuring, as Trapper Joan, Pamela Anderson, and as Hawkeye, if they can get her out, Lindsay Lohan.

Every posting and rememberance of 'Arthur' reminds me how pitch perfect the original was. When it opened, a friend of mine loved to quote Guilgud's 'To meet a woman of your stature...' line. And then there was Arthur's reply to Susan saying that a real woman could get him to stop drinking. And Athur's response to Susan's father's comment that he doesn't drink.The remake makes about as much sense as the sequel did. The older post mentions that Gordon gave you a copy of the script. When the remake is about to open it might be worthwhile to do another post revisiting the script and how ,as director, Gordon filmed it so every joke landed.

I found it amusing. It might help not to think of it as the same movie.

One of my pet peeves is ordering something in a restaurant only to find that the chef has "reinvented" it. I'll never forget that jambalaya in Fire Island that was made with pasta. To make matters worse, the chef was from New Orleans.

Now, this pasta seafood dish was actually delicious...but it wasn't jambalaya. The whole point of jambalaya is that rice is actually cooked in the red sauce with the seafood. You *cannot* have jambalaya without rice. Period.

I love seafood pasta, and I would have enjoyed that dish a lot more if I hadn't been expecting jambalaya. So, while this film almost certainly won't be as good as the original Arthur, it may still be somewhat amusing in its own right if you are not expecting it to be something else.

Of course, so many movies have halfway decent trailers and the rest of the movie is rubbish, that this could very well be the case with this one. But, based on the trailer, I'll probably go see this one.

This probably won't make a whole of difference, though, to those who worship the original. I enjoyed it when it came out, but it was never a favorite of mine.

If it's any solace, it's that 54 years from now, this "Arthur" will be as well remembered as the pointless 1957 Technicolor remake of "My Man Godfrey," with David Niven and June Allyson trying vainly to fill the larger-than-life shoes of William Powell and Carole Lombard -- which is to say, not remembered at all. (To be fair, Niven did have a supporting role to Bill and Carole in the 1938 "Lux Radio Theater" adaptation of the 1936 film.)

Ken, just this one? You're a very generous and forgiving man. I'm not sure I can ever quite forgive Albert Brooks for participating in the remake of The In-Laws. I would almost be relieved to find out he only did it to pay off gambling debts to bone-crunching mob bookies.

Russell Brand? What, did Richard Grant have the class to turn this down (or did the producers have the self-awareness to realize he would and never offered it to him)?

VP81955: Except for the collective "ugh" noise being made over this movie during its initial release and the studio's desperate attempts to hype its DVD sales a few weeks later, this movie will be utterly forgotten until some snarky future film major decides to do a thesis on Sequels & Remakes That Prove the Movie Industry is Run by Insane People.

But the real question is, will it be in 3D?

ps: VW "aecking" is the sound most people will make when they see this film's trailer in a movie theater.

Well, I disagree that cannot re-make a movie like "Arthur." You can, but you don't handicap yourself by hiring Russell Brand to star in it--he just doesn't have what it takes.

It's my understanding that the reason the re-make went forward was because some idiot pushed for Brand to star in "Arthur." Some idiot went, "Oh, he's funny (though this remains up for debate) and English, let's get him for "Arthur." A very bad idea.

word of trailer alone should make this bomb - if there's anyone who deserves to eat a pile of shit pie it's that self-satisfied phoney Russell Brand.... how the hell anyone finds him funny truly astounds me

Nothing is new under the sun. Even ruining a charming sweet little movie like 'Arthur'. Let's us not all forget that The original 'Arthur' was already tarnished by a slopped together sequel very originally named 'Arthur 2'. So if this remake is a tarnish on the original movie, let's remember that that's already been done.

Definitely one of my favorites although I was never overly fond of Liza Minelli in the role, as a previous poster mentioned. But then I would try to figure out who I would cast instead and never quite settled on anyone that seemed right. Possibly Goldie Hawn? (remembering the time period)

Love this blog. It's one of the few sites on earth that I can read the comments and be glad that I did.

I thought it looked quite good. I never really enjoyed the fake drunkeness of the first, and that poor Dudley wasnt really faking it but was beginning to show signs of the disease which killed him made it just sad in retropsect. Not a fan of Liza and the theme song was just painful.

I like the idea of Russell Brand having to get a normal job, even in a movie, fish out of water comedies are fun !

OK, everyone seems to hate Russell Brand as "Arthur". Now since it's been remade, who should have or would have been a better casting choice for Arthur? I'm not a fan of Russell, but I'll reserve judgement and see what this looks like before dissing it...and I'm saying that as a HUGE fan of the original movie, probably in my Top 10 lists of favorite movies.

As it happens, I'm looking at Russell Brand (muted) on SNL right now. He looks like a cross between Oscar Wilde and Tiny Tim (the one with the ukulele, not the one with the crutch). How long before he joins Yahoo Serious in the "Where are they now?" file?

I haven't seen ARTHUR in a long time and would probably still enjoy it, though the "alcholism is fun!" attitude of that bygone era would be a bit much to take today. I saw the trailer before JUST GO WITH IT this weekend and though it looked okay, though the lack of excessive boozing appears to infantilize Arthur to a great degree.

As for JUST GO WITH IT? Yes, it's pretty crappy but it's also pretty funny. If you can't accept that a movie can be both, don't bother with it.

Gonna agree with Rebecca on this one. I think it looks pretty amusing, and I was prepared to hate it. It's admittedly been years since I saw the original, but like Rebecca said, if you judge it on its own merits, it could be funny.

I still love the moment when Moore announces he's going to take a bath and Gielgud, not even looking up from his newspaper remarks "I'll alert the media."

Not fond of the theme song, but Burt Bacharach's score for the movie is otherwise quite nice.

Liza Minnelli was just too jittery and intense in this movie for my taste. I saw the sequel (it was the only way to get into a free preview of A FISH CALLED WANDA), and as badly as it reeked, she was relaxed and appealing.

The original looks pretty dim, but Helen Mirren looks pretty funny, as does Anne Hathaway as the dragon-lady fiancee. Brand is appearing in yet another ill-advised remake; he appeared in a dreadful re-tool of the wonderful ST. TRINIAN'S movies from the 1950's, playing petty crook Flash Harry. If George Cole is still alive, I hope he slapped him about a few times.

Classic.Almost every single line Gielgud says in the movie is amazing. I think I must quote them all the time. Every night before I give my 4 year old her bath, I ask her in perfect Gielgud "Would you care to urinate?"

It's more theoretically offensive than literally offensive. The trailer doesn't look terrible or wonderful, and it doesn't recycle/ruin one punchline. If they just called it "Murray" or "Tyrone" instead of "Arthur," no one's dudgeon would be feeling elevated.

I'm no fan of Brand and I despise his presence in this movie. However, I will say he was perfect for "Get Him To The Greek" - proving once again that with good material, the right director yanking hard on the leash and not letting the actor run amok, anything can look good on screen.

The trailer for this nightmarish and infantile new Arthur demonstrates this.

They guy playing Bitterman looks pretty funny. Also, I wouldn't want to get into a fistfight with Dame Helen. But then, there's a Russian general somewhere on her family tree. NOT the sort of person you would want to mess with . . .

I hate to admit this, but I'm intrigued after watching the trailer. It's not going to be like the Moore/Minelli version by a long shot, but it doesn't look horrible. I'm putting it on the list of things to see at a matinee in a 2nd run theater or on a cable on-demand channel.

I just noticed that Turner Classic Movies will be showing ARTHUR on Monday night. The channel's web site includes some tid bits about the movie, including Moore's quote that the while most scripts he read had one joke every ten pages; 'Arthur' had ten jokes on one page. The site also mentions that Moore wasn't the first choice to play 'Arthur', that James Caan, Richard Dreyfuss, Nicholson and Pacino were considered. And that it was Moore who suggested Gielgud. Steve Gordon first thought of casting David Niven or Alec Guinness as 'Hobson'.

People hold the original too sacred. It's poorly lit, many jokes fall flat, Dudley Moore cackles annoyingly throughout, and Liza Minnelli is ugly. I was surprised at how good the dialogue is in the remake.

About KEN LEVINE

Named one of the BEST 25 BLOGS OF 2011 by TIME Magazine. Ken Levine is an Emmy winning writer/director/producer/major league baseball announcer. In a career that has spanned over 30 years Ken has worked on MASH, CHEERS, FRASIER, THE SIMPSONS, WINGS, EVERYBODY LOVES RAYMOND, BECKER, DHARMA & GREG, and has co-created his own series including ALMOST PERFECT starring Nancy Travis. He and his partner wrote the feature VOLUNTEERS. Ken has also been the radio/TV play-by-play voice of the Baltimore Orioles, Seattle Mariners, San Diego Padres. and has hosted Dodger Talk on the Dodger Radio Network.

Ken's Book Club

MUST KILL TV: Ken's explosive and hilarious satire of the TV industry - now in paperback and Kindle